Hi Joao,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 08:42, Joao Paulo Silva Goncalves
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:08 AM Lucas Stach wrote:
> > I can reproduce the issue, but sadly there is no simple fix for this,
> > as it's a bad interaction between some of the new features.
> > At the core of the issue is
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 5:58 AM Lucas Stach wrote:
> Etnaviv added some resource tracking to fix issues with a number of
> use-cases, which did add some CPU overhead and might cost some
> performance, but should no be as dramatic as the numbers you are seeing
> here.
Good to know. Thanks!
>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:08 AM Lucas Stach wrote:
> I can reproduce the issue, but sadly there is no simple fix for this,
> as it's a bad interaction between some of the new features.
> At the core of the issue is the dmabuf-feedback support with the chain
> of events being as follows:
> 1.
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 12:17:33PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> One thing you can try is to edit
> weston/libweston/backend-drm/state-propose.c and, inside
> dmabuf_feedback_maybe_update(), prevent action_needed from ever being
> set to ACTION_NEEDED_ADD_SCANOUT_TRANCHE. It would be
